Super Injunctions

[Foster14]

My point still remains that it is inherently unfair that someone with lots of money can attain a gagging order whilst the same privilege cannot be granted to 95% of the population.

And what right did he have to anonymity when he wanted to name the Tweeters in a court of law, whilst still being CTB.

 

I agree that everyone has a right to privacy but unfortunately our society thrives on celebrity culture who seem to be role models for so many people nowadays and who make a lot of their money from being celebrities. Maybe if we had more freedom of speech we may not go all sensationalist when rich people try to gag others.

 

And it's not just celebrities who find themselves tabloid news when they have committed an indiscretion. Someone close to me, in a very normal job, had an affair with a married man and it made a full page spread in the Sunday Mail or Sunday Mirror, some tabloid anyway. It was published and she had to deal with it. It was talked about for a while but the general public move on.

 

Now we've got to put up with Imogen, Giggs getting hounded and Max Clifford for the next few days/weeks. By the way Max Clifford may be a c.unt but was with his wife for 40 years until she died, I admire that!

 

I agree that it is wrong to have such a tool only available to the rich when as you say, anyone's name can be dragged though the dirt with no real public interest. To me the bigger question is the reason why a super-injunction is actually required. The Sun are currently trying to get it overturned again and again, even though the name is public knowledge. Why is that? So they can print all the sordid details that so many want. Where they did it. How good it was. How often he text/called her. What gifts he gave her. How he ditched her. How she didn't attempt to extort anything. Some slut gets rich, some papers and publicists get some decent money, Giggs gets hounded and the victims in it all get constantly reminded and have everything dragged through the mud. It is pathetic.

 

As I said earlier though, that is a reflection on the current society. The need to make celebrity and break them.

[Jaws]

I agree that it is wrong to have such a tool only available to the rich when as you say, anyone's name can be dragged though the dirt with no real public interest. To me the bigger question is the reason why a super-injunction is actually required. The Sun are currently trying to get it overturned again and again, even though the name is public knowledge. Why is that? So they can print all the sordid details that so many want. Where they did it. How good it was. How often he text/called her. What gifts he gave her. How he ditched her. How she didn't attempt to extort anything. Some slut gets rich, some papers and publicists get some decent money, Giggs gets hounded and the victims in it all get constantly reminded and have everything dragged through the mud. It is pathetic.

 

As I said earlier though, that is a reflection on the current society. The need to make celebrity and break them.

 

Sex sells and a story as big as this is huge for tabloids like The Sun. They couldn't give a f**k about the individuals involved, as long as they're selling thousands of papers and making a bit of money out of it, that's all they're interested in. Which is why they're desperate to publish the sordid details of it all.

 

At the end of the day though, Giggs deserves no sympathy.

[Foster14]

Sex sells and a story as big as this is huge for tabloids like The Sun. They couldn't give a f**k about the individuals involved, as long as they're selling thousands of papers and making a bit of money out of it, that's all they're interested in. Which is why they're desperate to publish the sordid details of it all.

 

At the end of the day though, Giggs deserves no sympathy.

 

The media only supplies stories based on what the public want though is my point. It is pathetic.

[spamspamspam]

My point still remains that it is inherently unfair that someone with lots of money can attain a gagging order whilst the same privilege cannot be granted to 95% of the population.

And what right did he have to anonymity when he wanted to name the Tweeters in a court of law, whilst still being CTB.

 

I agree that everyone has a right to privacy but unfortunately our society thrives on celebrity culture who seem to be role models for so many people nowadays and who make a lot of their money from being celebrities. Maybe if we had more freedom of speech we may not go all sensationalist when rich people try to gag others.

 

And it's not just celebrities who find themselves tabloid news when they have committed an indiscretion. Someone close to me, in a very normal job, had an affair with a married man and it made a full page spread in the Sunday Mail or Sunday Mirror, some tabloid anyway. It was published and she had to deal with it. It was talked about for a while but the general public move on.

 

Now we've got to put up with Imogen, Giggs getting hounded and Max Clifford for the next few days/weeks. By the way Max Clifford may be a c.unt but was with his wife for 40 years until she died, I admire that!

 

Freedom of speech and respecting the privacy of the private lives of people are 2 totally different things. Freedom of speech relates to you being able to stand up for your own beliefs, politics, way of life using words, broadcasting those ideas using any medium you choose without the threat of recrimination. Privacy laws cover totally different things and have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Its the press that seem to think this is a freedom of speech issue, IMO thats only so they can gloss over their real reason which is being purveyors of filth since 19 oat cake. Its rags like the Sun and the Star that encourage and feed this celeb obsession, dont buy, dont read, encourage others to follow suit and you'll soon find they change tact. Other countries dont have this countries celeb obsession, they also live without tabloid press funnily enough.

 

The people on twitter have signed up, posted pictures, usually of themselves and their lives and named their home town for all to see. They check into shops, bars, coffee houses etc with their friends letting everyone know where they arew and when they are there... Sticking their names into a court document isnt exactly breaking their anonymity. Signing up for a site like that, posting your name, photos and home town is giving up that right IMO.

 

So what public interest did the story about your friend have? was he in a position of power locally or a businessman who had done other things to bring him to light? If it served no public interest then cases like this could pave the way to ensuring stories like your friends one doesnt happen again.

 

I'm of the opinion a line has to be drawn somewhere, if its some rich footballer that draws that line using his fortune then so be it. This is now being discussed in the Houses of Parliament, Giggs has been named by an MP to bring it out and to open the discussion. If it leads to better privacy laws, especially since a lot of our laws protecting our privacy has been stripped away from us over the last 10-15 years then I'm all for it no matter what the real reason behind it is.

 

I'm also against sluts selling sex stories to papers for another 15 minutes and 10K. If money is the motivator then the substance cant be trusted IMO.

[phoenix]

John Hemming , the guy who flouted , I like.

 

MP for Birmingham Yardley was born on 16 March 1960( same as you , tup ? ) making him a Pisces in the Year of the Rat.

 

Personal

John is a member of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Musician's Union. He was a drummer in a Heavy Metal Rock Group and plays jazz piano (having performed with Andy Hamilton and the Blue Notes and the John Patrick Quartet). He was a candidate for Britain's First Astronaut and speaks six languages. John is married and has four children.

 

http://john.hemming....n/biography.php

 

 

[phoenix]

Giles Coren I probably do not like. Giles Coren was born 29 July 1969 is a British food critic, television presenter and novelist ; Leo in Year of Rooster.

 

 

Super Injunctions and Contempt of CourtOn 13 May 2011 Coren attracted more controversy joking about a Super Injunction by posting on his Twitter feed:

 

"god, ANOTHER injunction tonight. another footballer. and SUCH a boring one. f**king sh*t midfielder... he's yet another very ugly married man who's been carrying on with a gold-digging flopsie he should have seen coming a MILE away...". Then on 14 May he tweeted "Gareth Barry" looks remarkably relaxed when you consider that... first touch for gareth barry... not according to what i've heard... time for a bet. what chance Barry to score? tiny fiver on barry to score at 22-1. wdv been nice to get a double with giggs in the match before.. Barry's been pulled off...". This was later deleted but was archived.

 

Various UK papers reported on 22 May 2011 that a journalist could be jailed over Twitter comments about injunctions and its referral to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve. Later on Twitter Coren acknowledged he could face jail. Coren was named as the journalist facing prosecution in the House of Commons by John Hemming on 23 May 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

[Coopy100]

Here is the explanation behind the ruling:

 

Yon imogen has massive cans and would get it for the whole of 2 seconds.

[TheG_L_A]

Imogen Thomas is an anagram of "A smooth minge"

 

 

just sayin like.

[OddJob]

Imogen Thomas is an anagram of "A smooth minge"

 

 

just sayin like.

[wullfo]

http://europeansportsnews.paddypower.com/index.php?fn=Roberto&ln=.&nc=Kintore+Arms+Hotel

[tup]

 

 

In the words of Kevin Keegan, I would LOVE it, I say LLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEE IIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTT if the reprehensible Coren was jailed.

 

Hanging's too good for the c**t.

 

I'd stick thon A A Gill in with him, 20 years hard labour, the gay sex being the only thing keeping each other going.

 

w*nkers and leeches.

 

Coren does NOTHING. He exists to eat, and give out acidic reviews.

 

If I ever own a restaurant in future, and either of the above walk in, I'll personally serve them their meals, right across the side of their smug faces, crowning the whole thing by smashing the empty plates over their heads, and having them ejected from the premises by a couple of gorillas without their feet touching the ground.

 

I'd YouTube the whole thing, critique that you c**ts.

[The Boofon]

http://europeansportsnews.paddypower.com/index.php?fn=Roberto&ln=.&nc=Kintore+Arms+Hotel

 

:hysterical:

 

 

Superb and worthy of recognition.

[OddJob]

http://europeansportsnews.paddypower.com/index.php?fn=Roberto&ln=.&nc=Kintore+Arms+Hotel

[wullfo]

:hysterical:

 

 

Superb and worthy of recognition.

 

Why thank you kindly. Would have been better with a second name though, other than a dot.

[The Boofon]

Why thank you kindly. Would have been better with a second name though, other than a dot.

 

PArdon my stupidity but what's the site for making them?

[wullfo]

http://europeansportsnews.paddypower.com

 

And Im sure your nae stupid.

 

Enjoy!

[The Boofon]

http://europeansportsnews.paddypower.com

 

And Im sure your nae stupid.

 

Enjoy!

 

I must be as I've already clicked that link and canna get to edit anything to put a mate's name in.

[wullfo]

I pasted the link into google , clicked on the link that came up first in the search, clicked on send to a friend, filled in the names etc, and sent it.

 

Sorry if that sounds patronising Boof.

[The Boofon]

I pasted the link into google , clicked on the link that came up first in the search, clicked on send to a friend, filled in the names etc, and sent it.

 

Sorry if that sounds patronising Boof.

 

 

It doesn't. Thanks.

[inane_rubbish]

Opinions people?

 

If you have money, you can cover up your past.

 

Didnt Kate Moss get all her cocaine stories removed from Google too?

 

I just got one done on your ma.